Donald v. Nesbit

Supreme Court of Georgia

Donald v. Nesbit

15 S.E. 367, 89 Ga. 290

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 16, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 15 S.E. 367 (Donald v. Nesbit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Donald v. Nesbit, 15 S.E. 367, 89 Ga. 290 (Ga. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

[290]*290 Judgment affirmed.

The paper in question was executed as a deed. The parties to it were Ann Davis of the first part, and Donald, Melissa Nesbit and Lula Williams of the other part. It stated that the party of the first part, in consideration of $5 paid, had granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and did grant, bargain, sell and convey to the parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, certain land, describing it; and further, “one half of said lot is intended for S. M. Donald, and the other half for my nieces, to wit Melissa Nesbit and Lula Williams ; the real consideration being, that said S. M. Donald has been waiting on me for some time and has been faithful, and but for him I would have been helpless and would have suffered, and he is to continue waiting on me and providing for me as long as I live. My nieces above named, I make this gift for the love and affection I have for them; but in no event is this deed to go into effect until after my death.” This was followed by habendum and warranty clauses usual in a deed.

R. J. Jordan, by brief, for plaintiff- in error. J. R. Whiteside, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[290]*290 Judgment affirmed.

The paper in question was executed as a deed. The parties to it were Ann Davis of the first part, and Donald, Melissa Nesbit and Lula Williams of the other part. It stated that the party of the first part, in consideration of $5 paid, had granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and did grant, bargain, sell and convey to the parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, certain land, describing it; and further, “one half of said lot is intended for S. M. Donald, and the other half for my nieces, to wit Melissa Nesbit and Lula Williams ; the real consideration being, that said S. M. Donald has been waiting on me for some time and has been faithful, and but for him I would have been helpless and would have suffered, and he is to continue waiting on me and providing for me as long as I live. My nieces above named, I make this gift for the love and affection I have for them; but in no event is this deed to go into effect until after my death.” This was followed by habendum and warranty clauses usual in a deed.

R. J. Jordan, by brief, for plaintiff- in error. J. R. Whiteside, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 S.E. 367, 89 Ga. 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-v-nesbit-ga-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack